creation of the world to the prefent time, in which the gofpel was preach'd to all na tions, and to all the individuals of them, nor is it now; there are multitudes that: know nothing at all of it. It has been indeed preach'd where it is not now, and its removal has been owing to mens neglect, contempt, or abuse of it; but why fhould their pofterity be deprived of it? Surely, if God had a people among them, and Christ had died for them, he would have fent his gofpel age after age to make known their Saviour to them, and the benefits of his death, that they, thro' faith in him, might enjoy them. To this a more fpecial anfwer is return'd, "That the people who are now destitute of the knowledge of Christ, either have been before called to believe in him by the gospel; but, thro' their own wickednefs and infidelity, are deprived of it, or the gospel was never fent to them; if the former, the anfwer is eafy, That God once vouchfaf'd the favour to them, and willed that they should propagate it to pofterity; but if negligent, the fault is not in God, who is to be confider'd as having called their pofterity virtually by them, but in. men neglecting their duty. As for those to whom the gospel was never preached, as the Indians, it is certain, that God has now

m

Limborch, p. 328.

abolish'd

abolish'd all diftinction among people, and wills that the gofpel fhould be preach'd to all nations, and to all and each man among all nations, without any difference, for their converfion; and that those who are converted might instruct others, which is all one as if he virtually called them. But if men are negligent, or the people to whom they come ftubborn, and by force drive away the preachers, and reject the truth, the fault is not in God, but men. 'Tis granted, that it may be that God may never expressly fend minifters of the word to fome men, and yet he never denies the communication of his grace, unless it be for mens demerits." To which may be replied, That some perfons, to whom the gospel has been vouchfafed, have been deprived of it thro' their own wickedness and infidelity, will not be denied but that the falvation of any for whom Chrift died, fhould depend upon the will and conduct of other men, or that the means of the knowledge of Chrift, of the benefits of his death, and falvation by him, fhould be withheld from fuch for whom

Chrift died, thro' the negligence, ingrati tude, or unbelief of others, is neither confiftent with the perfections or providence of God. Befides, if it was his will where the gofpel has been fent, that it should be propagated to pofterity, this will of his is either an imperfect velleity, a faint with, which

is not to be afcrib'd to God, or his proper will, and this would have been fulfill'd; for who hath refifted his will? Nor can God be thought to have virtually called the pofterity of those men to whom his gofpel has been fent, who have neither received it themfelves, nor tranfmitted it to them. Can the prefent inhabitants of Ephefus, Smyrna, and other places in Afia, where the gospel was once preach'd, be faid to be virtually called by God, by the means of their ancestors, who, in procefs of time, either neglected or despised the gospel, or held it in unrighteousnefs? As to what is faid refpecting the Indians, or fuch to whom the gospel was never fent, the former part of the reasoning upon it is very impertinent; feeing it fuppofes, not only that it is the will of God that the gofpel fhould be preach'd to them, which, if it was, it doubtless would be preached to them, but that it has been fent unto them, and rejected by them. It is own'd, that God may never fend the minifters of his gofpel to fome men; but why does he not? Is it because they are more unworthy of it than thofe to whom they are fent? This is not faid, what fhould be the reason of this inequality and difference, that God fends his gofpel to fome, and not others, gives his grace to the more unworthy, and paffes by the lefs unworthy? The learned writer, attended to, is obliged to Part III.

K

own,

own, that no reason can be affign'd by us, that it depends on the mere will and pleafure of God, and is to be referr'd to the fecret treasures of divine Wisdom, unfearchable by us.

VIII. The next argument is, That "if Christ died for all men, it follows, that he died for Cain, the Sodomites, Pharaoh, Judas, &c. as well as for Abel, Lot, Abraham, David, Peter, &c. yea, for the impenitent, and even for those who were already dead in their impenitence before he himself died." To this it is anfwer'd " as before, That "fpecial regard is had to those who live after Chrift died, and to whom the gofpel is preach'd, that tho' those who died in their impenitence before the death of Chrift, could receive no benefit by it, yet Christ is truly faid to die for them, fince, had they feriously converted themselves to God, as they might by the grace of God, they would have found remiffion of fins in the blood of Christ hereafter to be shed, even as those did who repented and died in piety before the death of Chrift. That the cafe of Judas is fingle, and is no exception to the univer fality of Chrift's death; tho' there's no need to except him, for Chrift may be rightly said to die for him, and he might have been

n Whitby, p. 329.

a

a partaker of the benefit of Christ's death; and that on a two-fold account. First, inafmuch as by grace communicated to him, O because of the death of Chrift, a little after to be endured, he might have abftain'd from the great fin of betraying him. And, Secondly, had he repented, he would have obtain'd pardon of God for it." I reply, as before, That the controverfy between us, is not whether Chrift died for those who lived before or after his death, but whether he died for all the fons and daughters of Adam, whether they live before or after his death? And if he died only or chiefly for those who lived after his death, and to whom the gospel is preach'd, then not for all men, fince the far greater part of mankind lived before his death, and to whom the gospel was never preached. With what view, upon what confideration or account foever, could Chrift be faid to die for those that were already dead in their impenitence? Had he died for them, grace would have been communicated to them on the account of his death, hereafter to have been endur'd, as this author fays in the cafe of Judas; and fo they would have repented and been converted, as well as have received remiffion of fins in his blood, hereafter to be fhed. But inasmuch as they neither had grace to repent, nor forgiveness of fins, by virtue of the future death of Chrift, as others

K 2